- Email: [email protected]
Conceptualising computer-mediated communication technology and its use in organisations
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
Conceptualising computer-mediated communication technology and its use in organisations Linda D. Peters School of Management, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Abstract This paper develops a typology of computer-mediated communication (CMC) media that goes beyond media characteristics theories (such as media richness) by considering aspects of the media use context in addition to the characteristics and capabilities of the media themselves. A view of communication as a two-way and mutually causal process which focuses attention on the interrelationship of those who communicate as well as the media through which they communicate is taken. We also highlight the importance of the context in which the communication takes place. In supporting research and practice which recognises the context and interrelationships in organisational communication, this paper has utilised Adaptive Structuration Theory to develop a framework for the conceptualisation of CMC technologies in organisational use. This framework focuses not only on the media characteristics themselves, but upon broader aspects of CMC use such as organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making processes. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Adaptive structuration theory; Technology features; Computer-mediated communication media
1. Introduction This paper develops a typology of computer-mediated communication (CMC) media that goes beyond media characteristics theories (such as media richness) by considering aspects of the media use context in addition to the characteristics and capabilities of the media themselves. As Mark and Poltrock (2004) note, properties of social worlds which can influence technology adoption include aspects of the individual, the collective group, the work environment, and the task. Such aspects could include: organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making. It is the intention of this paper to utilise an Adaptive Stucturation Theory (AST) approach to develop such a conceptualisation of CMC technologies and their use in organisations. Academic researchers may find the proposed typology useful in future CMC research designs, as it is more inclusive than media-centric approaches alone. Managers may find the proposed typology useful in understanding relevant success factors in organisational CMC use, and in assessing cost–benefit evaluations in CMC-related investments. Tel: +44(0)1603 593331; fax: +44(0)1603 593343.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0268-4012/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.11.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
143
A key feature of the AST is that it recognises the situational and socially constructed influences on technology use, and it avoids attempts to separate the user from the technology. ‘‘AST explores how human beings actively structure the social world and how physical and social contexts enter into action’’ (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990, p. 178). AST is based upon structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) which examines the interplay of structure and action in creating and maintaining social systems. It is the inseparable link between structure and agency, known in structuration theory as the duality of structure, which distinguishes the structurationist approach. As Giddens states: ‘‘Agents and structures are not two independently given sets of phenomena y but represent a duality y the structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize’’ (Giddens, 1984, p. 25). According to Berends, Boersma, and Weggeman (2003) structuration theory posits that the individual is not an absolute given, but that individuals necessarily draw upon pre-existing rules and resources (i.e., a preexisting structure). Of course, in order to draw upon these pre-existing rules and resources, actors have to be ‘knowledgeable’ of them. Structuration does not imply that actors are slaves of existing structures, they do in fact have the power to ‘act otherwise’. However, Berends et al. (2003) also point out that ascribing knowledgeability to actors does not imply that they are omniscient about their motives, conditions and consequences of their actions. There may be ‘unacknowledged pre-conditions’ and ‘unintended consequences of action’, which form the bounds of knowledgeability (Giddens, 1984, p. 294) and which play an important role in the production and reproduction of structure. AST distinguishes between two aspects of technological structures: their spirit and the specific structural features built into the system. DeSanctis and Poole (1994) define a structural feature as a specific rule or resource, examples of which might include the anonymous recording of ideas, or the capacity to vote on decisions. These features govern how information can be gathered, manipulated and managed by users. Spirit may be described as the principle of coherence that holds a set of rules and resources together (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), or the general objectives and procedures that the CMC technology aims to promote. It can be interpreted in a manner analogous to the spirit of the law (Chin, Gopal, & Salisbury, 1997). Whilst the features of a technology are designed to promote its spirit, features are functionally independent of spirit and may be used in ways contrary to it by some groups (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990, p. 179). Structuration is then seen as the process that describes the group’s creation and use of structures, and Appropriation as the way in which this structuration process relates to the spirit of the technology, either as Faithful to that spirit or as Ironic. Appropriations of the technology consist of the visible actions which are evidence of deeper structuration processes (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). One of the great strengths of AST, and the prime reason it is so appropriate for CMC study, is that it explicitly differentiates between aspects of a technology’s Spirit from its Structural Features. We will now go on to explore in more depth the spiritual and structural features of CMC technologies. To help illustrate our conceptualisation of these features, we have utilised an organisational example by including quotes from discussions with managers about their CMC use. We will explore, using an organisational case study example, how CMC media may be conceptualised and examined in future research. Our example is taken from our observations and conversations with managers at one of Europe’s largest telecoms organisations. They combine carrier-grade telecommunications engineering and leading-edge network design, information technology system and application development skills with extensive expertise in business consulting and human factors in information technology use. Their research and development project teams membership combines both technically skilled product developers and non-technical experts (such as education or human–computer interaction experts). The members in the teams we observed were typically non-co-located, and the use of CMC technologies in establishing working relationships and facilitating work tasks was key to their working practices. The quotations used are designed to help illustrate our conceptualisation of CMC media in organisational use, and are, therefore, not presented as empirical support but rather as insightful experiences from actual managerial practice. 2. A conceptual model of CMC technology and use Gray (2004) notes that several researchers have identified two dimensions contributing to organisational communication: an informational dimension that focuses on satisfaction with the content and flow of
ARTICLE IN PRESS 144
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
information and a relational dimension that focuses on satisfaction with communication relationships with other organisational members. As Rice (1991) states, some characteristics of the communication media are really more abstract conceptualisations of underlying properties, roles or functions which may be used to identify enduring and comparable system characteristics. We would term these structural features. On the other hand, Chin et al. (1997) propose that spirit must be judged not only by the signifiers that the user is presented with in media use, but also by their interpretations of these signifiers. They state that faithfulness of appropriation is not necessarily concerned with the precise duplication of the procedure provided by the media, but is rather concerned with whether the media is used in a manner consistent with its overall goals and objectives (p. 347). DeSanctis and Poole (1994) suggest that a parsimonious approach to the study of technologies is to scale them according to a meaningful set of dimensions. We focus in this study on two such dimensions, which are the ability to control message contact, and the ability to control message content (Peters, 1998). Within these two dimensions, there are a number of structural and spiritual features which may distinguish technologies. In Fig. 1, we see an overview of how these features of organisational technology use are related. One benefit of adopting such an approach, which examines both the structural and spiritual aspects of organisational technology use, is that it addresses the need to develop an understanding of media choice and use that integrates different theoretical perspectives, and which views these perspectives as complementary rather than competing (Webster & Trevino, 1995). Future research in CMC use and its social and communicative implications would be best understood as a product of the characteristics in all four of the cells, rather than focusing on only one or two of the cells, which has been more typical of literature to date. Media could be compared on a particular dimension, or by formulating a complete profile. Such a profile could be used as an analytic tool when studying a media in use. We now explore these aspects of CMC use in organisations in more depth. 2.1. Control of contact in computer-mediated communications Interactive elements of communication media include the degree to which messages reach individuals pinpointed in time and space (addressability) and the extent to which messages are available to receivers upon demand (message availability: Blattberg & Deighton, 1991; Huber, 1990). The primary feature of this characteristic of media use is the extent to which the flow of information is under the control of the user. In Control of Contact
Control of Content
User perceptions and satisfaction with the flow of information.
User perceptions and satisfaction with the content of information.
What are the general goals and attitudes the technology aims to promote in relation to the flow of information, and how does user appropriation relate to these?
What are the general goals and attitudes the technology aims to promote in relation to the content of information, and how does user appropriation relate to these?
What are the rules and resources ascribed to the The process of performance and limitations of Structuration is the the actual media in relation to process that describes the flow of information? the group’s creation and use of structures.
What are the rules and resources ascribed to the performance and limitations of the actual media in relation to the content of information?
Spiritual Features of Technology Use The process of Appropriation is the way in which the structuration process relates to the spirit of the technology, either as Faithful to that spirit or as Ironic.
Structural Features of Technology Use
Fig. 1. Structure and spirit in technology use.
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
145
our case example, several features of email in particular were seen to both facilitate and hinder this ability. Firstly, the capacity to easily mass distribute information, while seen as useful and efficient in many instances, can also be seen as intrusive and unnecessary. ‘‘You have to take it in context, if it is addressed to you directly or a broadcast message. I get a lot of general distributions. It is irritating that I get the same email yfrom different sources, it is the desire of management that they are not the obstacle to the broadcast of information.’’ ‘‘The point is, organising information, and information overload. The only time I believe you can go into information overload is when someone is lecturing to you, and it’s just gone too far and you can’t stop [them]y but through [communication] systems you control the intake and you control the organisation of it, that’s my theory of it.’’ The first manager recognises that there are unintended consequences in the use of mass email distributions, including the tendency for information disseminators to lack coordination (and thus duplicate messages). Although email systems were certainly designed to enhance information availability, their uncoordinated and untargeted use provides an ironic appropriation of the communication media. On the other hand, the second manager suggests ways in which the recipient can utilise features of the technology to minimise these unintended consequences. The need for these managers is for greater control on the part of the email recipient to be able to identify and filter messages by a number of criteria, including sender, subject, urgency and need for response. New technical developments and user appropriations of the technology could usefully focus upon these information management needs. But what of the unintended consequences of technology use, such as information overload? Huber (1990) suggests two approaches to the increasing danger of information overload on message receivers: firstly that they will be more formally educated about what is important and to whom, and secondly that technology will be used for augmenting routine judgements. In the case example organisation, the ability to mass distribute information meant that senior managers where becoming involved in issues which did not require their participation so much as their awareness of the situation: ‘‘I am struggling with this nowy all the stuff I get is at one level or another relevant to me, and I can’t handle it. Previously, I did not know what I was missing, and I was really happy in that ignorance. Now I get information, and I think ‘‘I really should read this’’, and I can’t, I really do not have the time, and I feel really inadequate.’’ Here, we see the unintended consequences of easy information dissemination. Rather than accelerating business processes (as may have been the original intention), such information distribution may indeed inhibit efficiency and effectiveness. We have seen how the structural and spiritual features of a technology, and its appropriation by users, may help and/or hinder the control of contact in communications between organisational members. We now look at how we might conceptualise possible dimensions regarding control of contact in CMC technologies. 2.1.1. Aspects in the structure and spirit of control of contact Remembering our definition of technology features, we recall that a structural feature is a specific rule or resource that operates in a group, whereas the spirit is the principle of coherence that holds a set of rules and resources together (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990). In relation to control of contact in CMC, there are a number of structural features which distinguish this aspect of technologies, and which might provide useful measurement dimensions. These could include the physical arrangement of the groups which the technology supports, the communication model it supports and the synchronicity of communication. Spiritual features may include the specific areas of business impact and value creation supported by CMC use. 2.1.1.1. Physical arrangement of groups supported. Communication media may support two main types of physical work-group arrangements. Firstly, it may support groups whose members are dispersed, working in their separate conference rooms, offices, homes or other locations. Secondly, it may support face-to-face meetings that occur in one physical setting, such as in conference or board rooms (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). Recent academic research has tended to view the notion of virtuality vs. co-location as a continuum
ARTICLE IN PRESS 146
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
rather than an objective state (Kirkman, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Therefore, the extent to which group members are dispersed or co-located, both physically and psychological, could be one useful dimension of the structural features relating to control of contact. 2.1.1.2. Communication style. Communication style refers to the temporal (or time) dimension of communications, and can be seen to be either more synchronous or more asynchronous in nature. Synchronous communication styles, as the name implies, tend to have little or no time lag between the giving, receiving and responding aspects of communication between the parties. Asynchronous communication styles would include such a time lag (Rice, 1993). Communication style can have a significant influence on media use and media choice. 2.1.1.3. Communication model. The new CMC media may follow different communication models. Not only may you have one-to-one (e.g. an email to a colleague) and one-to-many (e.g. an email to a distribution list) communication, but also many-to-many communication (e.g. a threaded discussion group) which would normally only be possible in face-to-face meetings (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Therefore, the communication model followed could be a useful dimension of the structural features relating to control of contact. 2.1.1.4. Impact/value creation. One way of characterising the spiritual features of a technology in terms of control of contact is to identify specific areas of business impact and value creation, i.e., areas of business activity to which the technology is intended to enhance value (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness and innovation) and how this is achieved by the system (i.e. through impacting the functions of time, geography and relationships). For this, we draw upon the Impact/Value framework of Hammer and Mangurian (1987). Firstly, efficiency may be enhanced by accelerating processes, allowing economies of scale in geographically or time-distanced business activities, and dis-intermediation. Secondly, effectiveness may be enhanced by reducing the time it takes for information to reach managers (known as ‘‘float’’), ensuring organisational-wide management consistency and control, and knowledge sharing. Thirdly, innovation may be facilitated by helping to create service excellence, allow penetration of new markets, and increases the relationship ‘‘umbilical cord’’ between business partners, suppliers and customers. This framework highlights directly the fact that how information technology systems are developed and utilised will have a direct effect upon business performance. It also underlies one of the most important performance outcomes in knowledge-based organisational teamworking, that of process improvement (Kirkman et al., 2004). Looking at three examples of communication technologies (email, groupware and the web), we can apply these aspects of control of contact. While we intend to deal here with the most simple and straightforward examples of each technology, technological convergence and increased sophistication may mean that specific examples of email, groupware or web design could in fact reflect different configurations of characteristics, and would therefore present different profiles than those presented here. Examples of more complex CMC technologies could include point-to-point videoconferencing, persistent chat and integrated voice-over IP applications. In addition, the specific context regarding the organisational use of such technologies would also have to be reflected in any analysis. We provide the following analysis only as an example of how our conceptualisation of CMC technology could be applied given the specific illustrative case study setting. Firstly, in relation to email use in the case organisation, we see that it primarily supports groups whose members are dispersed, and may support one-to-one and one-to-many communications (through multiple recipients and email lists), but not many-to-many situations (as there were no threaded discussion groups currently in use). However, the notion of co-location is influenced by psychological and perceptual attitudes, as one manager commented: ‘‘The main lab block is only 100 yards away and [other team members are] 200 miles away, but in essence they are both equidistant from this place. This concept of distance is not geographic distance, it is one of separation. Ideally everyone would be located together but it cannot happen.’’ In contrast, many of those who were physically located in the same office were in fact working on different project teams, and so there was little sense of commonality between those physically located together as opposed to those working on a project with remote colleagues via electronic communication.
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
147
‘‘If I had to give a rundown of what the person at the next desk was doing I would not know. There is no sense of ‘‘this is the thing we are working on’’, within the people who are physically located together’’. Clearly, email use might well be appropriated differently given the differing psychological attitudes towards the geographical and social distance users felt with those team members with whom they were communicating. Email is also very asynchronous with a considerable time lag compared to other media (such as relay chat), and was seen as being useful in supporting faster business processes, getting information to managers quickly, and making available individual knowledge to a wider organisational audience. Groupware can be much more complex, as different groupware systems may support very different tasks. In addition to the impact/value creation activities of email, groupware may also allow the organisation to control operations and recapture efficiencies of scale across global borders, archive knowledge and experience, and impact relationships with suppliers and buyers. For example, Lotus Notes allows users to create environments for supporting workgroup document management and collaboration. It enables users to share database data, documents, email messages and ongoing discussions (Weiser & Morrison, 1998). Features of the web may include its hypertext linking which allows flexibility and connectivity of information. The impact/value creation activities highlighted in groupware were also available to web users, and in addition its global availability makes penetration of new markets possible. On the whole, those team members utilising corporate Intranets or the Internet were dispersed geographically, and thus in our case example, this media supports both one-to-many and many-to-many asynchronous communication. We can compare these aspects of CMC media to face-to-face communication, which is clearly related to colocation. Face-to-face communication can support one-to-many and many-to-many communication models. In addition, face-to-face communication is high in synchronicity. However, as Hammer and Mangurian’s model applies to the impact of technology on business processes, it was not applied to face-to-face communication. These features of CMC and face-to-face communications in the context of our case study organisation are summarised in Table 1. 2.2. Control of content in computer-mediated communications This aspect of communication media focuses upon the users’ perceptions of their experiences with the message, whether it is a responsive interaction or merely exposure to the message. The perception that the communication medium is responsive to the user, and not simply the conduit through which messages are sent, is a key aspect of the concept of interactivity. This can be as simple as the ability of the user to determine the amount of information awaiting attention and the stage of information processing which has been reached with each message (i.e. the capacity for email systems to indicate if a message has been read and/or responded to). In terms of controlling message content, many managers highlighted the difference they noticed in how they construct messages for email as opposed to other media, and the impact this had upon their use of such media. ‘‘ywhen I communicate through email I can actually think about what I am saying so it can be a better means of communication. I can write down all the points that I want to have covered, and the person at the other end can answer those points.’’ While such consideration in composing an email message is seen as a positive feature of the medium by these managers, it can also be subject to socially constructed behaviours which then alter media use, as one manager explained: ‘‘When I first started to use email from home, I was kind of attached to the fact that it was possible to explain things very clearly in a piece of text rather than having messages garbled verbally. I developed a habit of writing longer emails, that worked with some people but gradually within the team, they became hostile to. A lot of people have discovered this. There is a tendency to cut the emails down, to make everything as concise as possible. That is a useful skill. It tends to be here that if the message has to be scrolled then they do not tend to look at the bottom part of the message.’’ Even though this manager worked remotely from the rest of the team, communication norms of behaviour affected their appropriation of the technology. Group pressure to compose parsimonious emails won-out over
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
148
Table 1 Control of contact, summary of structural and spiritual features of communication media Email Structural features: control of contact Members are dispersed Physical arrangement of groups supporteda
Groupware
Web
Face-to-face
Members may be dispersed or co-located
Members are dispersed
Members are colocated One-to-one One-to-many Many-to-many Very synchronous
Communication modelb
One-to-one One-to-many
One-to-many Many-to-many
One-to-many Many-to-many
Communication stylec
Very asynchronous
Synchronous (Level 2 interventions) Asynchronous (Level 3 interventions)
Very asynchronous
Spiritual features : control of contact Accelerate business Impact/value creationd processes Reduce information float Replicate scarce knowledge
Accelerate business
processes Reduce information float Replicate scarce knowledge Create service excellence Recapture scale Ensure global management control Bypass intermediaries Build umbilical cord
Accelerate business processes
Reduce information float
Replicate scarce knowledge
Create service excellence
Recapture scale Ensure global management control
Bypass intermediaries Build umbilical cord Penetrate new markets
a
Poole and DeSanctis (1990). Hofman and Novak (1996). c Rice (1993). d Hammer and Mangurian (1987). b
the need to create full and rich content. This increased control over the order and presentation of information is also reflected in the way in which much of the information received is processed: ‘‘You do get much more sporadic pieces of information. I used to get a lot of information all at once in a checkpoint meeting, now I get lots of smaller pieces of information and I have to put it all together.’’ Here, we see again that the power of CMC technologies may have unintended consequences in information dissemination and decision-making in organisations. We have seen how the structural and spiritual features of a technology, and its appropriation by users, may help and/or hinder the control of content in communications between organisational members. We now look at how we might conceptualise possible dimensions regarding control of content in CMC technologies. 2.2.1. Aspects in the structure and spirit of control of content In relation to control of content in CMC, there are a number of structural features which distinguish this aspect of technology use, and which might provide useful measurement dimensions. These could include structural features such as the level of communication intervention facilitated and the social context cues it allows. In addition, spiritual aspects of control of content could include group vs. individual saliency, locus of the decision process (individuals or group consensus), conflict management (conflict awareness or resolution) and the team interaction (formal/informal and structured/unstructured).
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
149
2.2.1.1. Level of communication intervention. While CMC media provide an additional communication channel for teams, they also influence communication patterns, decision-making patterns, and alternative ways of accomplishing teamwork (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). In supporting organisational relations, technology has had a major impact upon the ways in which teams operate. Poole and DeSanctis (1990) characterise three levels of communication intervention: (1) communication only is facilitated, (2) decisionmaking and modelling is facilitated as well and (3) expert advice, filtering and structuring of information is also facilitated. 2.2.1.2. Social context cues. Early research proposed that electronic communication would be stripped of social context cues and would tend to be task-focused rather than relational, and free-wheeling rather than socially controlled (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998). However, much subsequent research has focused on the social context cues which even text-only media may provide (Rice, 1993). Traditionally, text-only media such as email would be considered low in the amount of social context cues which it could provide, while face-to-face communication would be considered very high. However, even low channel-capacity media such as email can be used for complex communication if the organisation encourages and supports it. (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998). In the communications research literature, Webster and Trevino (1995) point out that media richness theory suggests that the content of a communication message drives media use choice. More recent research has suggested that the richness of the information processed is determined by the communication medium used, and that because managers depend on rich information to effectively bridge internal and external interfaces, media richness has the potential to affect the ultimate success of an organisation (Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, & Markland, 2004). According to the theory, highly equivocal messages are open to interpretation, and therefore, a shared definition of the content of a message must be created through interactive communication between the parties. This would be particularly important in networked business relationships (such as alliances and virtual organisations) where media richness may be a facilitator of network connectivity (Vickery et al., 2004). 2.2.1.3. Group vs. individual saliency. We may also focus upon the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism as the primary normative view supported by the technology. With individualism, the role of technology is to aid management in its pursuit of efficiency and maximisation of gain. Technology is a tool to be applied to enhance individual power and overcome human limitations, such as limited strength or rationality. Alternatively, collectivism supports the view that organisations exist for the service of society as a whole, rather than for the individual. Collectivism assumes that the organisation is not merely an aggregate of individuals but rather a social structure in its own right. (DeSanctis, 1993). The opposing perspectives of these two approaches may influence the goals and guiding paradigm in technology use and in support for organisational change. For individualism, this includes the goal of technology as that of improving individual decision efficiency and quality, and adopting the ‘‘I’’ or individually salient guiding paradigm. For collectivism, this includes the goal of technology as one of supporting the social order, and adopting the ‘‘We’’ or group salient guiding paradigm (DeSanctis, 1993). 2.2.1.4. Decision processes. In addition, we may consider the type of decision process that is being promoted, and how the technology supports it. For example, is the primary aim to support a given decision and its subsequent actions by gaining group consensus, establishing empirical justification, forming rational understandings, exercising political power, and/or providing an opportunity for individual contributions? The goals which the technology promotes and the values it supports would indicate which type of decision processes which would be best facilitated through a particular CMC technology. 2.2.1.5. Interaction. This would be reflected in the atmosphere between communicators, such as the relative formality and structure of user interactions. Thus, processes of domination in group behaviour may be reflected in the spirit of the technology, as influence activities which take place through the technology may privilege some users over others (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
150
2.2.1.6. Conflict management. The style of conflict management which the technology supports may also be considered a feature. Are interactions considered more orderly or chaotic? Do they emphasise conflict awareness or conflict resolution (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, p. 127)? Looking at the three communication technologies we have used as examples (email, groupware and web) and comparing them to face-to-face communication, we can apply these aspects of control of content. Firstly, in relation to email use in the case study organisation, we see that it primarily supports groups at the first level of intervention (communication only). Email is often considered to be a way of providing an informal method of communication with wide access, and would thus reduce hierarchical authoritarian and communication structures (Daw, 2001, p. 42). However, many organisations have found that because emails are not ephemeral in the way phone and face-to-face conversations are, ironic appropriations are common where communication is archived and used as evidence in disputes and for ‘‘Big Brother’’ style managerial control (Daw, 2001, p. 40). One such example of an unfaithful appropriation of the technology was reflected in the comment by one manager that: ‘‘The good thing about email is its ability to create an audit trail. If I send out a message to someone to do something by a certain day then that is irrefutable evidence that I have asked them to do it. For replies back it is good to keep them for an audit trail.’’ Email is often said to be low in social context cues (Rice, 1993), will tend to support individual rather than group saliency (because it is a one-to-one or one-to-many model) and more individualistic decision processes. Conflict resolution is possible—however, it is more likely to be achieved by control (giving orders) rather than consensus as members are limited in their ability to respond in a flexible and discussion-based way. Asynchronicity in email means that control of content is often chaotic, with time lags creating information asymmetry.
Table 2 Control of content, summary of structural and spiritual features of communication media Email Structural features: control of content Level of communication Level 1: communication only Interventiona Social context cuesb
Low
Spiritual features:control of content Group vs. individual Individual saliency Saliencyc Decision processes d Individualistic More chaotic, Conflict managementd emphasises conflict resolution
Interactiond
More informal
Less structured a
Poole and DeSanctis (1990). Rice (1993). c DeSanctis (1993). d DeSanctis and Poole (1994). b
Groupware
Web
Level 2: decision modelling and group decision-making
Level 3: expert advice, filtering and structuring of information
Face-to-Face
Level 3: expert advice, filtering and structuring of information Medium
Medium
High
Group saliency
Individual saliency
Group saliency
Individualistic and consensus May be chaotic or orderly, emphasises conflict awareness and/or resolution
Individualistic More chaotic, emphasises conflict awareness
May be formal/informal and structured or unstructured
More formal
Consensus May be chaotic or orderly, emphasises conflict awareness and/or resolution May be formal or informal and structured or unstructured
More structured
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
151
While groupware may be used to facilitate decision process, in the company surveyed, both groupware and the web were primarily used to gain expert advice and to archive, filter and structure information. Audio and visual capabilities mean that both groupware and the web are higher in social context cues. However, groupware (as the name implies) tends to facilitate group rather than individual saliency, and may support both individualistic and consensual decision processes. Communication and information may be chaotic or orderly, and conflict awareness and/or resolution (through real-time threaded discussions) may be possible. Hypertext capabilities on the web may lead to more chaotic information dissemination, and asynchronicity to difficulty in achieving conflict resolution. As groupware use and contributions are often under the control of the user, who may construct folders and contribute to discussions, it can support both more formal and structured and more informal and unstructured interactions. Access to posting information on the corporate Intranet and the Internet was at the discretion of an organisational information gatekeeper in our case study example, and thus tends to favour more formal and structured interactions. Alternatively, face-to-face communications are high in social cues, and promote group saliency and consensual decision processes. They also has greater flexibility in conflict management and information dissemination, and in the possible formality and structuredness of interactions when compared to other communication media. These features of control of content in the context of our case study organisation are summarised in Table 2. 3. Conclusion In the end, it is users who constitute and give meaning to technologies (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990), and these meanings are often socially constructed. Communication networks attempt to operationalise the ways in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and examine how patterns of interaction within and between networks affect and are affected by the behaviours and cognitions of the individual network members (Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990). The developers and users of advanced communication technologies often hold high hopes for their potential to improve decision-making, information and intelligence sharing and supporting new organisational forms. However, DeSanctis and Poole (1994) ask ‘‘What technology impacts should we anticipate, and how can we interpret the changes that we observe?’’ Communication models have moved away from an over reliance on the notion of directional persuasion, where a linear model may have been more satisfactory. They adopt instead the view of communication as exchanges. This allows for a view of communication as a two-way ‘cybernetic’ (or mutually causal) process which may focus attention on the interrelationship of those who communicate. It also highlights the importance of the context in which the communication takes place. In supporting research and practice which recognises the context and interrelationships in organisational communication, this paper has utilised AST to develop a framework for the conceptualisation of CMC technologies in organisational use. This framework of CMC media focuses not only on the media characteristics themselves, but also upon broader aspects of CMC use such as organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making processes. By taking a more inclusive view of how CMC technologies may be defined and used, we hope to provide researchers and managers with a better understanding of how the dynamics of organisational CMC use may influence, and be influenced by, the actual context in which use takes place. References Berends, H., Boersma, K., & Weggeman, M. (2003). The structuration of organizational learning. Human Relations, 56(9), 1035–1056. Blattberg, R., & Deighton, J. (1991). Interactive marketing: Exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Management Review, Fall. Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367. Contractor, N., & Eisenberg, E. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Daw, S. (2001). Marketing Business, May. DeSanctis, G. (1993). Shifting foundations in group support system research. In L. Jessup, & D. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives. New York: Macmillan. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 152
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication process for virtual organizations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3(4). DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organisation Science, 5(2), 121–147. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Chicago: Polity Press. Gray, J. (2004). Improving measurement of communication satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 425–448. Hammer, M., & Mangurian, G. (1987). The changing value of communication technology. Sloan Management Review, 28(2), 65–71. Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 50–68. Huber, G. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. R. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192. Mark, G., & Poltrock, S. (2004). Groupware adoption in a distributed organisation: Transporting and transforming technology through social worlds. Information and Organisation, 14, 297–327. Peters, L. D. (1998). The new interactive media: 1 to 1 but who to whom? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(1). Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Rice, R. (1991). Contexts of research on organizational computer-mediated communication : A recursive review. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Rice, R. (1993). Media appropriateness; using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451–484. Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science, 50(8), 1106–1119. Webster, J., & Trevino, L. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1544–1572. Weiser, M., & Morrison, J. (1998). Project memory: Information management for project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 149–166.
Dr. Linda D. Peters, BA(Hons), MBA, DipM, PhD Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of East Anglia. Linda teaches and researches in the area of consumer behaviour and internet marketing. She is currently conducting research regarding the use of electronic communications media by organisational teams, and is particularly interested in the strategic use of I.T. and new communications media in establishing and enhancing internal and external customer relationships. Her research interests extend to relationship and internal marketing issues, organisational learning and knowledge management, and organisational teamworking and communications. She is a Chartered Marketer, and her industrial experience includes several years in the fields of market research and database management.
International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
Conceptualising computer-mediated communication technology and its use in organisations Linda D. Peters School of Management, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Abstract This paper develops a typology of computer-mediated communication (CMC) media that goes beyond media characteristics theories (such as media richness) by considering aspects of the media use context in addition to the characteristics and capabilities of the media themselves. A view of communication as a two-way and mutually causal process which focuses attention on the interrelationship of those who communicate as well as the media through which they communicate is taken. We also highlight the importance of the context in which the communication takes place. In supporting research and practice which recognises the context and interrelationships in organisational communication, this paper has utilised Adaptive Structuration Theory to develop a framework for the conceptualisation of CMC technologies in organisational use. This framework focuses not only on the media characteristics themselves, but upon broader aspects of CMC use such as organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making processes. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Adaptive structuration theory; Technology features; Computer-mediated communication media
1. Introduction This paper develops a typology of computer-mediated communication (CMC) media that goes beyond media characteristics theories (such as media richness) by considering aspects of the media use context in addition to the characteristics and capabilities of the media themselves. As Mark and Poltrock (2004) note, properties of social worlds which can influence technology adoption include aspects of the individual, the collective group, the work environment, and the task. Such aspects could include: organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making. It is the intention of this paper to utilise an Adaptive Stucturation Theory (AST) approach to develop such a conceptualisation of CMC technologies and their use in organisations. Academic researchers may find the proposed typology useful in future CMC research designs, as it is more inclusive than media-centric approaches alone. Managers may find the proposed typology useful in understanding relevant success factors in organisational CMC use, and in assessing cost–benefit evaluations in CMC-related investments. Tel: +44(0)1603 593331; fax: +44(0)1603 593343.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0268-4012/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.11.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
143
A key feature of the AST is that it recognises the situational and socially constructed influences on technology use, and it avoids attempts to separate the user from the technology. ‘‘AST explores how human beings actively structure the social world and how physical and social contexts enter into action’’ (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990, p. 178). AST is based upon structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) which examines the interplay of structure and action in creating and maintaining social systems. It is the inseparable link between structure and agency, known in structuration theory as the duality of structure, which distinguishes the structurationist approach. As Giddens states: ‘‘Agents and structures are not two independently given sets of phenomena y but represent a duality y the structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize’’ (Giddens, 1984, p. 25). According to Berends, Boersma, and Weggeman (2003) structuration theory posits that the individual is not an absolute given, but that individuals necessarily draw upon pre-existing rules and resources (i.e., a preexisting structure). Of course, in order to draw upon these pre-existing rules and resources, actors have to be ‘knowledgeable’ of them. Structuration does not imply that actors are slaves of existing structures, they do in fact have the power to ‘act otherwise’. However, Berends et al. (2003) also point out that ascribing knowledgeability to actors does not imply that they are omniscient about their motives, conditions and consequences of their actions. There may be ‘unacknowledged pre-conditions’ and ‘unintended consequences of action’, which form the bounds of knowledgeability (Giddens, 1984, p. 294) and which play an important role in the production and reproduction of structure. AST distinguishes between two aspects of technological structures: their spirit and the specific structural features built into the system. DeSanctis and Poole (1994) define a structural feature as a specific rule or resource, examples of which might include the anonymous recording of ideas, or the capacity to vote on decisions. These features govern how information can be gathered, manipulated and managed by users. Spirit may be described as the principle of coherence that holds a set of rules and resources together (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), or the general objectives and procedures that the CMC technology aims to promote. It can be interpreted in a manner analogous to the spirit of the law (Chin, Gopal, & Salisbury, 1997). Whilst the features of a technology are designed to promote its spirit, features are functionally independent of spirit and may be used in ways contrary to it by some groups (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990, p. 179). Structuration is then seen as the process that describes the group’s creation and use of structures, and Appropriation as the way in which this structuration process relates to the spirit of the technology, either as Faithful to that spirit or as Ironic. Appropriations of the technology consist of the visible actions which are evidence of deeper structuration processes (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). One of the great strengths of AST, and the prime reason it is so appropriate for CMC study, is that it explicitly differentiates between aspects of a technology’s Spirit from its Structural Features. We will now go on to explore in more depth the spiritual and structural features of CMC technologies. To help illustrate our conceptualisation of these features, we have utilised an organisational example by including quotes from discussions with managers about their CMC use. We will explore, using an organisational case study example, how CMC media may be conceptualised and examined in future research. Our example is taken from our observations and conversations with managers at one of Europe’s largest telecoms organisations. They combine carrier-grade telecommunications engineering and leading-edge network design, information technology system and application development skills with extensive expertise in business consulting and human factors in information technology use. Their research and development project teams membership combines both technically skilled product developers and non-technical experts (such as education or human–computer interaction experts). The members in the teams we observed were typically non-co-located, and the use of CMC technologies in establishing working relationships and facilitating work tasks was key to their working practices. The quotations used are designed to help illustrate our conceptualisation of CMC media in organisational use, and are, therefore, not presented as empirical support but rather as insightful experiences from actual managerial practice. 2. A conceptual model of CMC technology and use Gray (2004) notes that several researchers have identified two dimensions contributing to organisational communication: an informational dimension that focuses on satisfaction with the content and flow of
ARTICLE IN PRESS 144
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
information and a relational dimension that focuses on satisfaction with communication relationships with other organisational members. As Rice (1991) states, some characteristics of the communication media are really more abstract conceptualisations of underlying properties, roles or functions which may be used to identify enduring and comparable system characteristics. We would term these structural features. On the other hand, Chin et al. (1997) propose that spirit must be judged not only by the signifiers that the user is presented with in media use, but also by their interpretations of these signifiers. They state that faithfulness of appropriation is not necessarily concerned with the precise duplication of the procedure provided by the media, but is rather concerned with whether the media is used in a manner consistent with its overall goals and objectives (p. 347). DeSanctis and Poole (1994) suggest that a parsimonious approach to the study of technologies is to scale them according to a meaningful set of dimensions. We focus in this study on two such dimensions, which are the ability to control message contact, and the ability to control message content (Peters, 1998). Within these two dimensions, there are a number of structural and spiritual features which may distinguish technologies. In Fig. 1, we see an overview of how these features of organisational technology use are related. One benefit of adopting such an approach, which examines both the structural and spiritual aspects of organisational technology use, is that it addresses the need to develop an understanding of media choice and use that integrates different theoretical perspectives, and which views these perspectives as complementary rather than competing (Webster & Trevino, 1995). Future research in CMC use and its social and communicative implications would be best understood as a product of the characteristics in all four of the cells, rather than focusing on only one or two of the cells, which has been more typical of literature to date. Media could be compared on a particular dimension, or by formulating a complete profile. Such a profile could be used as an analytic tool when studying a media in use. We now explore these aspects of CMC use in organisations in more depth. 2.1. Control of contact in computer-mediated communications Interactive elements of communication media include the degree to which messages reach individuals pinpointed in time and space (addressability) and the extent to which messages are available to receivers upon demand (message availability: Blattberg & Deighton, 1991; Huber, 1990). The primary feature of this characteristic of media use is the extent to which the flow of information is under the control of the user. In Control of Contact
Control of Content
User perceptions and satisfaction with the flow of information.
User perceptions and satisfaction with the content of information.
What are the general goals and attitudes the technology aims to promote in relation to the flow of information, and how does user appropriation relate to these?
What are the general goals and attitudes the technology aims to promote in relation to the content of information, and how does user appropriation relate to these?
What are the rules and resources ascribed to the The process of performance and limitations of Structuration is the the actual media in relation to process that describes the flow of information? the group’s creation and use of structures.
What are the rules and resources ascribed to the performance and limitations of the actual media in relation to the content of information?
Spiritual Features of Technology Use The process of Appropriation is the way in which the structuration process relates to the spirit of the technology, either as Faithful to that spirit or as Ironic.
Structural Features of Technology Use
Fig. 1. Structure and spirit in technology use.
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
145
our case example, several features of email in particular were seen to both facilitate and hinder this ability. Firstly, the capacity to easily mass distribute information, while seen as useful and efficient in many instances, can also be seen as intrusive and unnecessary. ‘‘You have to take it in context, if it is addressed to you directly or a broadcast message. I get a lot of general distributions. It is irritating that I get the same email yfrom different sources, it is the desire of management that they are not the obstacle to the broadcast of information.’’ ‘‘The point is, organising information, and information overload. The only time I believe you can go into information overload is when someone is lecturing to you, and it’s just gone too far and you can’t stop [them]y but through [communication] systems you control the intake and you control the organisation of it, that’s my theory of it.’’ The first manager recognises that there are unintended consequences in the use of mass email distributions, including the tendency for information disseminators to lack coordination (and thus duplicate messages). Although email systems were certainly designed to enhance information availability, their uncoordinated and untargeted use provides an ironic appropriation of the communication media. On the other hand, the second manager suggests ways in which the recipient can utilise features of the technology to minimise these unintended consequences. The need for these managers is for greater control on the part of the email recipient to be able to identify and filter messages by a number of criteria, including sender, subject, urgency and need for response. New technical developments and user appropriations of the technology could usefully focus upon these information management needs. But what of the unintended consequences of technology use, such as information overload? Huber (1990) suggests two approaches to the increasing danger of information overload on message receivers: firstly that they will be more formally educated about what is important and to whom, and secondly that technology will be used for augmenting routine judgements. In the case example organisation, the ability to mass distribute information meant that senior managers where becoming involved in issues which did not require their participation so much as their awareness of the situation: ‘‘I am struggling with this nowy all the stuff I get is at one level or another relevant to me, and I can’t handle it. Previously, I did not know what I was missing, and I was really happy in that ignorance. Now I get information, and I think ‘‘I really should read this’’, and I can’t, I really do not have the time, and I feel really inadequate.’’ Here, we see the unintended consequences of easy information dissemination. Rather than accelerating business processes (as may have been the original intention), such information distribution may indeed inhibit efficiency and effectiveness. We have seen how the structural and spiritual features of a technology, and its appropriation by users, may help and/or hinder the control of contact in communications between organisational members. We now look at how we might conceptualise possible dimensions regarding control of contact in CMC technologies. 2.1.1. Aspects in the structure and spirit of control of contact Remembering our definition of technology features, we recall that a structural feature is a specific rule or resource that operates in a group, whereas the spirit is the principle of coherence that holds a set of rules and resources together (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990). In relation to control of contact in CMC, there are a number of structural features which distinguish this aspect of technologies, and which might provide useful measurement dimensions. These could include the physical arrangement of the groups which the technology supports, the communication model it supports and the synchronicity of communication. Spiritual features may include the specific areas of business impact and value creation supported by CMC use. 2.1.1.1. Physical arrangement of groups supported. Communication media may support two main types of physical work-group arrangements. Firstly, it may support groups whose members are dispersed, working in their separate conference rooms, offices, homes or other locations. Secondly, it may support face-to-face meetings that occur in one physical setting, such as in conference or board rooms (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). Recent academic research has tended to view the notion of virtuality vs. co-location as a continuum
ARTICLE IN PRESS 146
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
rather than an objective state (Kirkman, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Therefore, the extent to which group members are dispersed or co-located, both physically and psychological, could be one useful dimension of the structural features relating to control of contact. 2.1.1.2. Communication style. Communication style refers to the temporal (or time) dimension of communications, and can be seen to be either more synchronous or more asynchronous in nature. Synchronous communication styles, as the name implies, tend to have little or no time lag between the giving, receiving and responding aspects of communication between the parties. Asynchronous communication styles would include such a time lag (Rice, 1993). Communication style can have a significant influence on media use and media choice. 2.1.1.3. Communication model. The new CMC media may follow different communication models. Not only may you have one-to-one (e.g. an email to a colleague) and one-to-many (e.g. an email to a distribution list) communication, but also many-to-many communication (e.g. a threaded discussion group) which would normally only be possible in face-to-face meetings (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Therefore, the communication model followed could be a useful dimension of the structural features relating to control of contact. 2.1.1.4. Impact/value creation. One way of characterising the spiritual features of a technology in terms of control of contact is to identify specific areas of business impact and value creation, i.e., areas of business activity to which the technology is intended to enhance value (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness and innovation) and how this is achieved by the system (i.e. through impacting the functions of time, geography and relationships). For this, we draw upon the Impact/Value framework of Hammer and Mangurian (1987). Firstly, efficiency may be enhanced by accelerating processes, allowing economies of scale in geographically or time-distanced business activities, and dis-intermediation. Secondly, effectiveness may be enhanced by reducing the time it takes for information to reach managers (known as ‘‘float’’), ensuring organisational-wide management consistency and control, and knowledge sharing. Thirdly, innovation may be facilitated by helping to create service excellence, allow penetration of new markets, and increases the relationship ‘‘umbilical cord’’ between business partners, suppliers and customers. This framework highlights directly the fact that how information technology systems are developed and utilised will have a direct effect upon business performance. It also underlies one of the most important performance outcomes in knowledge-based organisational teamworking, that of process improvement (Kirkman et al., 2004). Looking at three examples of communication technologies (email, groupware and the web), we can apply these aspects of control of contact. While we intend to deal here with the most simple and straightforward examples of each technology, technological convergence and increased sophistication may mean that specific examples of email, groupware or web design could in fact reflect different configurations of characteristics, and would therefore present different profiles than those presented here. Examples of more complex CMC technologies could include point-to-point videoconferencing, persistent chat and integrated voice-over IP applications. In addition, the specific context regarding the organisational use of such technologies would also have to be reflected in any analysis. We provide the following analysis only as an example of how our conceptualisation of CMC technology could be applied given the specific illustrative case study setting. Firstly, in relation to email use in the case organisation, we see that it primarily supports groups whose members are dispersed, and may support one-to-one and one-to-many communications (through multiple recipients and email lists), but not many-to-many situations (as there were no threaded discussion groups currently in use). However, the notion of co-location is influenced by psychological and perceptual attitudes, as one manager commented: ‘‘The main lab block is only 100 yards away and [other team members are] 200 miles away, but in essence they are both equidistant from this place. This concept of distance is not geographic distance, it is one of separation. Ideally everyone would be located together but it cannot happen.’’ In contrast, many of those who were physically located in the same office were in fact working on different project teams, and so there was little sense of commonality between those physically located together as opposed to those working on a project with remote colleagues via electronic communication.
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
147
‘‘If I had to give a rundown of what the person at the next desk was doing I would not know. There is no sense of ‘‘this is the thing we are working on’’, within the people who are physically located together’’. Clearly, email use might well be appropriated differently given the differing psychological attitudes towards the geographical and social distance users felt with those team members with whom they were communicating. Email is also very asynchronous with a considerable time lag compared to other media (such as relay chat), and was seen as being useful in supporting faster business processes, getting information to managers quickly, and making available individual knowledge to a wider organisational audience. Groupware can be much more complex, as different groupware systems may support very different tasks. In addition to the impact/value creation activities of email, groupware may also allow the organisation to control operations and recapture efficiencies of scale across global borders, archive knowledge and experience, and impact relationships with suppliers and buyers. For example, Lotus Notes allows users to create environments for supporting workgroup document management and collaboration. It enables users to share database data, documents, email messages and ongoing discussions (Weiser & Morrison, 1998). Features of the web may include its hypertext linking which allows flexibility and connectivity of information. The impact/value creation activities highlighted in groupware were also available to web users, and in addition its global availability makes penetration of new markets possible. On the whole, those team members utilising corporate Intranets or the Internet were dispersed geographically, and thus in our case example, this media supports both one-to-many and many-to-many asynchronous communication. We can compare these aspects of CMC media to face-to-face communication, which is clearly related to colocation. Face-to-face communication can support one-to-many and many-to-many communication models. In addition, face-to-face communication is high in synchronicity. However, as Hammer and Mangurian’s model applies to the impact of technology on business processes, it was not applied to face-to-face communication. These features of CMC and face-to-face communications in the context of our case study organisation are summarised in Table 1. 2.2. Control of content in computer-mediated communications This aspect of communication media focuses upon the users’ perceptions of their experiences with the message, whether it is a responsive interaction or merely exposure to the message. The perception that the communication medium is responsive to the user, and not simply the conduit through which messages are sent, is a key aspect of the concept of interactivity. This can be as simple as the ability of the user to determine the amount of information awaiting attention and the stage of information processing which has been reached with each message (i.e. the capacity for email systems to indicate if a message has been read and/or responded to). In terms of controlling message content, many managers highlighted the difference they noticed in how they construct messages for email as opposed to other media, and the impact this had upon their use of such media. ‘‘ywhen I communicate through email I can actually think about what I am saying so it can be a better means of communication. I can write down all the points that I want to have covered, and the person at the other end can answer those points.’’ While such consideration in composing an email message is seen as a positive feature of the medium by these managers, it can also be subject to socially constructed behaviours which then alter media use, as one manager explained: ‘‘When I first started to use email from home, I was kind of attached to the fact that it was possible to explain things very clearly in a piece of text rather than having messages garbled verbally. I developed a habit of writing longer emails, that worked with some people but gradually within the team, they became hostile to. A lot of people have discovered this. There is a tendency to cut the emails down, to make everything as concise as possible. That is a useful skill. It tends to be here that if the message has to be scrolled then they do not tend to look at the bottom part of the message.’’ Even though this manager worked remotely from the rest of the team, communication norms of behaviour affected their appropriation of the technology. Group pressure to compose parsimonious emails won-out over
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
148
Table 1 Control of contact, summary of structural and spiritual features of communication media Email Structural features: control of contact Members are dispersed Physical arrangement of groups supporteda
Groupware
Web
Face-to-face
Members may be dispersed or co-located
Members are dispersed
Members are colocated One-to-one One-to-many Many-to-many Very synchronous
Communication modelb
One-to-one One-to-many
One-to-many Many-to-many
One-to-many Many-to-many
Communication stylec
Very asynchronous
Synchronous (Level 2 interventions) Asynchronous (Level 3 interventions)
Very asynchronous
Spiritual features : control of contact Accelerate business Impact/value creationd processes Reduce information float Replicate scarce knowledge
Accelerate business
processes Reduce information float Replicate scarce knowledge Create service excellence Recapture scale Ensure global management control Bypass intermediaries Build umbilical cord
Accelerate business processes
Reduce information float
Replicate scarce knowledge
Create service excellence
Recapture scale Ensure global management control
Bypass intermediaries Build umbilical cord Penetrate new markets
a
Poole and DeSanctis (1990). Hofman and Novak (1996). c Rice (1993). d Hammer and Mangurian (1987). b
the need to create full and rich content. This increased control over the order and presentation of information is also reflected in the way in which much of the information received is processed: ‘‘You do get much more sporadic pieces of information. I used to get a lot of information all at once in a checkpoint meeting, now I get lots of smaller pieces of information and I have to put it all together.’’ Here, we see again that the power of CMC technologies may have unintended consequences in information dissemination and decision-making in organisations. We have seen how the structural and spiritual features of a technology, and its appropriation by users, may help and/or hinder the control of content in communications between organisational members. We now look at how we might conceptualise possible dimensions regarding control of content in CMC technologies. 2.2.1. Aspects in the structure and spirit of control of content In relation to control of content in CMC, there are a number of structural features which distinguish this aspect of technology use, and which might provide useful measurement dimensions. These could include structural features such as the level of communication intervention facilitated and the social context cues it allows. In addition, spiritual aspects of control of content could include group vs. individual saliency, locus of the decision process (individuals or group consensus), conflict management (conflict awareness or resolution) and the team interaction (formal/informal and structured/unstructured).
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
149
2.2.1.1. Level of communication intervention. While CMC media provide an additional communication channel for teams, they also influence communication patterns, decision-making patterns, and alternative ways of accomplishing teamwork (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). In supporting organisational relations, technology has had a major impact upon the ways in which teams operate. Poole and DeSanctis (1990) characterise three levels of communication intervention: (1) communication only is facilitated, (2) decisionmaking and modelling is facilitated as well and (3) expert advice, filtering and structuring of information is also facilitated. 2.2.1.2. Social context cues. Early research proposed that electronic communication would be stripped of social context cues and would tend to be task-focused rather than relational, and free-wheeling rather than socially controlled (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998). However, much subsequent research has focused on the social context cues which even text-only media may provide (Rice, 1993). Traditionally, text-only media such as email would be considered low in the amount of social context cues which it could provide, while face-to-face communication would be considered very high. However, even low channel-capacity media such as email can be used for complex communication if the organisation encourages and supports it. (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998). In the communications research literature, Webster and Trevino (1995) point out that media richness theory suggests that the content of a communication message drives media use choice. More recent research has suggested that the richness of the information processed is determined by the communication medium used, and that because managers depend on rich information to effectively bridge internal and external interfaces, media richness has the potential to affect the ultimate success of an organisation (Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, & Markland, 2004). According to the theory, highly equivocal messages are open to interpretation, and therefore, a shared definition of the content of a message must be created through interactive communication between the parties. This would be particularly important in networked business relationships (such as alliances and virtual organisations) where media richness may be a facilitator of network connectivity (Vickery et al., 2004). 2.2.1.3. Group vs. individual saliency. We may also focus upon the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism as the primary normative view supported by the technology. With individualism, the role of technology is to aid management in its pursuit of efficiency and maximisation of gain. Technology is a tool to be applied to enhance individual power and overcome human limitations, such as limited strength or rationality. Alternatively, collectivism supports the view that organisations exist for the service of society as a whole, rather than for the individual. Collectivism assumes that the organisation is not merely an aggregate of individuals but rather a social structure in its own right. (DeSanctis, 1993). The opposing perspectives of these two approaches may influence the goals and guiding paradigm in technology use and in support for organisational change. For individualism, this includes the goal of technology as that of improving individual decision efficiency and quality, and adopting the ‘‘I’’ or individually salient guiding paradigm. For collectivism, this includes the goal of technology as one of supporting the social order, and adopting the ‘‘We’’ or group salient guiding paradigm (DeSanctis, 1993). 2.2.1.4. Decision processes. In addition, we may consider the type of decision process that is being promoted, and how the technology supports it. For example, is the primary aim to support a given decision and its subsequent actions by gaining group consensus, establishing empirical justification, forming rational understandings, exercising political power, and/or providing an opportunity for individual contributions? The goals which the technology promotes and the values it supports would indicate which type of decision processes which would be best facilitated through a particular CMC technology. 2.2.1.5. Interaction. This would be reflected in the atmosphere between communicators, such as the relative formality and structure of user interactions. Thus, processes of domination in group behaviour may be reflected in the spirit of the technology, as influence activities which take place through the technology may privilege some users over others (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
150
2.2.1.6. Conflict management. The style of conflict management which the technology supports may also be considered a feature. Are interactions considered more orderly or chaotic? Do they emphasise conflict awareness or conflict resolution (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, p. 127)? Looking at the three communication technologies we have used as examples (email, groupware and web) and comparing them to face-to-face communication, we can apply these aspects of control of content. Firstly, in relation to email use in the case study organisation, we see that it primarily supports groups at the first level of intervention (communication only). Email is often considered to be a way of providing an informal method of communication with wide access, and would thus reduce hierarchical authoritarian and communication structures (Daw, 2001, p. 42). However, many organisations have found that because emails are not ephemeral in the way phone and face-to-face conversations are, ironic appropriations are common where communication is archived and used as evidence in disputes and for ‘‘Big Brother’’ style managerial control (Daw, 2001, p. 40). One such example of an unfaithful appropriation of the technology was reflected in the comment by one manager that: ‘‘The good thing about email is its ability to create an audit trail. If I send out a message to someone to do something by a certain day then that is irrefutable evidence that I have asked them to do it. For replies back it is good to keep them for an audit trail.’’ Email is often said to be low in social context cues (Rice, 1993), will tend to support individual rather than group saliency (because it is a one-to-one or one-to-many model) and more individualistic decision processes. Conflict resolution is possible—however, it is more likely to be achieved by control (giving orders) rather than consensus as members are limited in their ability to respond in a flexible and discussion-based way. Asynchronicity in email means that control of content is often chaotic, with time lags creating information asymmetry.
Table 2 Control of content, summary of structural and spiritual features of communication media Email Structural features: control of content Level of communication Level 1: communication only Interventiona Social context cuesb
Low
Spiritual features:control of content Group vs. individual Individual saliency Saliencyc Decision processes d Individualistic More chaotic, Conflict managementd emphasises conflict resolution
Interactiond
More informal
Less structured a
Poole and DeSanctis (1990). Rice (1993). c DeSanctis (1993). d DeSanctis and Poole (1994). b
Groupware
Web
Level 2: decision modelling and group decision-making
Level 3: expert advice, filtering and structuring of information
Face-to-Face
Level 3: expert advice, filtering and structuring of information Medium
Medium
High
Group saliency
Individual saliency
Group saliency
Individualistic and consensus May be chaotic or orderly, emphasises conflict awareness and/or resolution
Individualistic More chaotic, emphasises conflict awareness
May be formal/informal and structured or unstructured
More formal
Consensus May be chaotic or orderly, emphasises conflict awareness and/or resolution May be formal or informal and structured or unstructured
More structured
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
151
While groupware may be used to facilitate decision process, in the company surveyed, both groupware and the web were primarily used to gain expert advice and to archive, filter and structure information. Audio and visual capabilities mean that both groupware and the web are higher in social context cues. However, groupware (as the name implies) tends to facilitate group rather than individual saliency, and may support both individualistic and consensual decision processes. Communication and information may be chaotic or orderly, and conflict awareness and/or resolution (through real-time threaded discussions) may be possible. Hypertext capabilities on the web may lead to more chaotic information dissemination, and asynchronicity to difficulty in achieving conflict resolution. As groupware use and contributions are often under the control of the user, who may construct folders and contribute to discussions, it can support both more formal and structured and more informal and unstructured interactions. Access to posting information on the corporate Intranet and the Internet was at the discretion of an organisational information gatekeeper in our case study example, and thus tends to favour more formal and structured interactions. Alternatively, face-to-face communications are high in social cues, and promote group saliency and consensual decision processes. They also has greater flexibility in conflict management and information dissemination, and in the possible formality and structuredness of interactions when compared to other communication media. These features of control of content in the context of our case study organisation are summarised in Table 2. 3. Conclusion In the end, it is users who constitute and give meaning to technologies (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990), and these meanings are often socially constructed. Communication networks attempt to operationalise the ways in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and examine how patterns of interaction within and between networks affect and are affected by the behaviours and cognitions of the individual network members (Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990). The developers and users of advanced communication technologies often hold high hopes for their potential to improve decision-making, information and intelligence sharing and supporting new organisational forms. However, DeSanctis and Poole (1994) ask ‘‘What technology impacts should we anticipate, and how can we interpret the changes that we observe?’’ Communication models have moved away from an over reliance on the notion of directional persuasion, where a linear model may have been more satisfactory. They adopt instead the view of communication as exchanges. This allows for a view of communication as a two-way ‘cybernetic’ (or mutually causal) process which may focus attention on the interrelationship of those who communicate. It also highlights the importance of the context in which the communication takes place. In supporting research and practice which recognises the context and interrelationships in organisational communication, this paper has utilised AST to develop a framework for the conceptualisation of CMC technologies in organisational use. This framework of CMC media focuses not only on the media characteristics themselves, but also upon broader aspects of CMC use such as organisational or usage contexts; group goals, processes and outcomes; and decision-making processes. By taking a more inclusive view of how CMC technologies may be defined and used, we hope to provide researchers and managers with a better understanding of how the dynamics of organisational CMC use may influence, and be influenced by, the actual context in which use takes place. References Berends, H., Boersma, K., & Weggeman, M. (2003). The structuration of organizational learning. Human Relations, 56(9), 1035–1056. Blattberg, R., & Deighton, J. (1991). Interactive marketing: Exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Management Review, Fall. Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367. Contractor, N., & Eisenberg, E. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Daw, S. (2001). Marketing Business, May. DeSanctis, G. (1993). Shifting foundations in group support system research. In L. Jessup, & D. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives. New York: Macmillan. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 152
L.D. Peters / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 142–152
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication process for virtual organizations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3(4). DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organisation Science, 5(2), 121–147. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Chicago: Polity Press. Gray, J. (2004). Improving measurement of communication satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 425–448. Hammer, M., & Mangurian, G. (1987). The changing value of communication technology. Sloan Management Review, 28(2), 65–71. Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 50–68. Huber, G. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. R. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192. Mark, G., & Poltrock, S. (2004). Groupware adoption in a distributed organisation: Transporting and transforming technology through social worlds. Information and Organisation, 14, 297–327. Peters, L. D. (1998). The new interactive media: 1 to 1 but who to whom? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(1). Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. London: Sage Publications. Rice, R. (1991). Contexts of research on organizational computer-mediated communication : A recursive review. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Rice, R. (1993). Media appropriateness; using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451–484. Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science, 50(8), 1106–1119. Webster, J., & Trevino, L. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1544–1572. Weiser, M., & Morrison, J. (1998). Project memory: Information management for project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 149–166.
Dr. Linda D. Peters, BA(Hons), MBA, DipM, PhD Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of East Anglia. Linda teaches and researches in the area of consumer behaviour and internet marketing. She is currently conducting research regarding the use of electronic communications media by organisational teams, and is particularly interested in the strategic use of I.T. and new communications media in establishing and enhancing internal and external customer relationships. Her research interests extend to relationship and internal marketing issues, organisational learning and knowledge management, and organisational teamworking and communications. She is a Chartered Marketer, and her industrial experience includes several years in the fields of market research and database management.